Question for you computer geeks

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    OK, geeks, listen up.
    Here is my current computer system right now.
    Windows XP Pro
    3.2MHz Pentium 4
    2GB Memory
    Hard drives as follows:
    C: 120Gb SATA
    D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    F: DVD
    G: DVD-R
    H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    L: 160 GB SCSI
    Most of my disks are almost full.

    OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.

    What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    my drives onto the big drive.
    I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    new OS?
    Or is there a better way of going about it?
    What would you do?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets
    filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download
    onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one
    of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I
    suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might
    lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and
    partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible.
    Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a
    few drives.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest


    I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #3
  4. I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or
    8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and
    it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly
    addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own
    1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.)
    If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much
    physical memory as the OS would give it.

    Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the
    OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and
    presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch
    file.
    This review (the first link google found) claims you can.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/23/windows_xp_x64/index.html
    I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick
    with 32-bit XP.

    My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS
    page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current
    data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file,
    application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly.

    By the way, I wish you wouldn't crosspost to aus.photo. It would reduce the
    noise over here substantially.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    El Barto Guest

    So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
    for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
    at the moment, even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
    CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.
    Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
    if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
    backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
    locations if possible.
     
    El Barto, Dec 27, 2007
    #5
  6. And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot
    would recommend that shitty of an optical solution.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    It only does better with more than 4 GB.
    The 2 GB limit is per process, not per thread.
    Anything over 4 GB is wasted with 32-bit XP.
    64-bit XP currently supports up to 128 GB,
    and gives 32-bit apps up to 4 GB.
    Why not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition??? Memory is cheap and
    getting cheaper.
    I suggest: (1) OS, (2) page + scratch, (3) data.
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    50 years or more.
    I've seen no credible evidence of high-grade optical discs failing when
    they've been stored properly. I've yet to have a problem reading any of
    my oldest CD-R discs.
    HDD has much shorter life than any high-quality optical media, on the
    order of only 5 years.
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    You've either got an axe to grind or you've never actually used it.
    Which is it? ;)
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #9
  10. before going to x64 check out your hardware compatibility as XP 64 still
    have some major issues with peripheral hardware. Also look here for software
    compatibility (
    http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t330290.html )
    personally I would stick with Pro. The speed differences you might see by
    going the x64 rout will probably be downplayed by software and hardware
    incompatibility issues :)

    With your setup I would be looking at making the SCSI drive the OS partition
    and then dumping all your other shit on the 1Tb drive in a couple of
    partitions, then turn the 400 into a scratch drive (as it is probably the
    fastest drive next to the SCSI and 1Tb drive, and being newer than the 120
    SATA) and turning the old IDE drive into an external drive cases are as
    cheap as chips now days)
    might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able to
    utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig.
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Dec 27, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    ray Guest

    The Pentium 4 is not a 64-bit CPU - it won't work. However, you can
    certainly copy files to the drive without it. BTW - MS 32 bit operating
    systems will not make full use of 4gb memory. They need to map address
    space etc. into the 4gb and you wind up with about 3gb that is actually
    usable. Linux, on the other hand, can be configured to access 64gb with a
    32 bit OS.
    If you want to run a 64 bit OS, you will have to get a 64 bit CPU - though
    as of today there is little advantage to it.

    BTW - if your system is not paging - kicking stuff out to swap space on
    disk - when you over utilize memory, then adding more will not make any
    difference.
     
    ray, Dec 27, 2007
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    My new laptop came with a blu-ray burner but we don't know if it'll turn
    out like the 8-track tape yet.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 27, 2007
    #12
  13. LOL!





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    XP can handle up to 4 GB, normally split 2 GB for applications and 2 GB
    for system, optionally split 3 GB for applications and 1 GB for system,
    depending on whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE value of the
    LOADED_IMAGE structure and 4-gigabyte tuning (4GT) are in use.
    <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx>
    <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx>
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    The last I check that cost per GB of blank Blu-Ray disks was very
    high, seems that for double sided disks you are looking at something
    like $0.60 /GB.

    Single sided disks are cheaper / GB, but still are running around
    $0.45/GB.

    DVDs on the other hand are less then $0.10 / GB.

    Even external hard drives are less then $0.30/ GB

    I am sure the price of blank Blur-Ray disks will come way down, the
    same way DVDs did and in a year or two might be a good cheap way to
    store a lot of data, but right now they are expensive and who can tell
    if Blu-Ray will win or HD DVD will win.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 27, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Dec 27, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On a percentage biases I have seen more hard drives fail then either
    DVD or CDs.

    I have a large number of CDs that are 10 years old, a very small
    fraction show any errors.

    I have gone back to old hard drive, if they are not used from time to
    time they fail pretty fast. I have gotten some of them working again
    by banging hard on the drive, but HD are not good for archiving

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 27, 2007
    #17
  18. This is easy, just remember that the Xbox360 is HD DVD and the PS3 is
    Blu-Ray. The Xbox360 will win out over the PS3. Nobody wants the PS3.




    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    I'm in no rush, I will wait a bit and see which format looks like it
    will be the winning one. To close to call right now, IMO, and the
    blank disks are too expensive anyway.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    The 2nd link answers that question. (It does. It's essentially the
    same as XP, except for starter editions.)
     
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.